M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Chitradurga V. ACIT, Hubli

ITSSA 70/BANG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7896 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATESAN
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N.K SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.7 0/BANG/2008 (ASST. YEARS 1986 -87 TO 1996-97) M/S LAXMI ENTERPRISES, RAMAKRISHNA MAHAL COMPLEX, NEHRU CIRCLE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. . APPELLANT VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INV.), CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S VENKATESAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE DATE OF HEARING : 15-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-12-2011 O R D E R PER SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 1986-87 TO 1996-97. THE APPEA L IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AT IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 2 HUBLI DATED 30.06.2008. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 158BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS: I. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND CORRECT IN LAW IN INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S 158 BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND CONSEQUEN TLY, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE ANNULLED. II. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS THE SATISFACTION HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED EITH ER IN THE FILE OR THE NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE ANNULLED HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF 289 ITR 34 1 (SC). III. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SINCE CERTAIN MATERIALS WHICH ARE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY AT THE APPELLANTS PREMISES, WERE TAKEN TO THE PREMISES OF DR. R.N DHANYA, WHICH IS ILLEGAL HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 133A OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY RENDERING THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF DR.R.N DHANYA I S IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 3 ILLEGAL AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICT ION U/S 158BD OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF BEING ILLEGAL SEARCH IS ALSO BAD AND THE ASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLE D. IV. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ALL THE MATERIALS, WHICH ARE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, WERE THOS E WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF IN THE THEATER AND WHICH WERE BROUGHT TO THE PREMISES OF DR. R.N DHANYA AND SEIZED AND CONSEQUENTLY, SINCE THEY WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ANTERIO R TO SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, THEY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS MATERIALS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS THE Y WERE NOT FOUND IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY SEARCH AND EVEN IF THEY ARE TO BE SO CONSIDERED SUC H ACT BEING ILLEGAL RENDERING THEIR SEIZURE ILLEGAL AND T HE BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE CONSEQUENTLY REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE REQUIRES ALSO TO B E DELETED. V. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS WHICH WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WITH T HE PARTNERS IN THEIR PLACES WERE NEVER BELIEVED AT THE TIME OF THEIR SEIZURE AS BELONGING TO THE PARTNERS AND SUBSEQUENTLY CAME TO BE BELIEVED BY THE AO AS NOT BELONGING TO THEM BUT, BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT FO R THE AO TO VALIDLY ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 158BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THEY FAILED TO APPRECIATE EV EN AT IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 4 THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE THEY WERE CONSIDERED AS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT ONLY AND NOT TO THE PERS ON SEARCHED AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION U/S 158BD IS ILLEGAL AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE ANNULLED. VI. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATIO N TENDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED MATERIALS AND CONSIDERING THEM FOR ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SURMISE, ASSUMPTI ON AND PRESUMPTIONS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITIONS MADE REQUIRES TO BE REJECTED. VII. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, HAVING HELD THAT THE EXTENT OF COLLECTIONS ARE EQUAL TO THE EXTENT O F EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EACH ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FORMING PART OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIALS TO ESTIMATE THE COLLECTIONS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE HE LD THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS NIL OR A NEGATIVE FI GURE AND FURTHER THERE IS NO BASIS TO ESTIMATE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME FOR EACH ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AT 14% OF THE ASSUMED COLLECTIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPENDI TURE ESTIMATED BY HIM BY REJECTING THE EXPLANATION. IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 5 VIII. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE INCOME ESTIMATED AT 14% IS EXCESSIVE AND LIABLE TO BE REDU CED SUBSTANTIALLY. IX. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSIN G A SUM OF RS.37,417/- [CORRECT FIGURE RS.42,217/- - TOTALING ERROR] AS UNDISCLOSED CANTEEN RENT FOR EAC H OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1998-99 FORMING PAR T OF THE BLOCK PERIOD ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT ERRONEOU SLY REPORTED THE INCOME. THE ADDITION IS PURELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISE, ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS , AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. X. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSIN G A SUM OF RS.26,300/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL FOR THE ASST. YEAR 19 97- 98 UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. XI. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AS THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVA NT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD NOT EVEN ENDED ON THE DA TE OF SEARCH AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF SECTION 158BA[3] O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, NO ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITIONS APPERTAINING T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 6 XII. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING THE TAX AT 60% IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT PROCESSE D U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT IN TERMS O F SEC. 113, IT IS ONLY IN SEC. 158BD CASES TAX CAN BE LEVI ED AT THE RATE OF 60% AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFYING TH E RATE IN RESPECT OF SEC. 158BD CASES, SUCH INCOME IS LIABLE TO TAX AT NORMAL RATES. XIII. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTERST U/S 158BFA OF THE ACT, WHICH REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED UNDER THE FACATS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABO VE, THE INTERST LEVIED IS EXCESSIVE AND LIABLE TO BE RE DUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF THREE PARTNERS VIZ., SMT. JAYAL AXMI, W/O B.R ANNAJI RAO, SRI B.R GOVIND RAO AND DR. R.N DHANYA, SONS OF LATE SHRI B RAMAKRISHNA DHANYA OF CHALLAKERE. SHRI B.R ANNAJI RAO IS THE ELDEST BROTHER OF OTHER TWO PARTNERS. THE MAIN ACT IVITY OF THE FIRM IS TAKING FILMS ON HIRE AND SCREENING THEM IN THEIR OW N THEATRE KNOWN AS RAMAKRISHNA THEATRE AT CHALLAKERE AND TO DO ANY O THER ALLIED BUSINESS. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTIONS U/ S 132(1) OF THE ACT ON 22.11.1997 IN THE COMMON RESIDENCE OF SHRI B.R G OVIND RAO AND IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 7 DR. R.N DHANYA AND ALSO IN THE CLINIC OF DR. R.N DH ANYA KNOWN AS RAMAKRISHNA CLINIC. IN THE COURSE OF THE SAID SEAR CH AND SEIZURE ACTION VARIOUS LOOSE SHEETS, FILES CONTAINING THE N OTINGS OF THE FILM HIRE CHARGES, PAYMENTS AND ADVANCE PAYMENT TO FILM DISTRIBUTORS ETC. WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. FROM THESE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND POST SEARCH, IT WAS OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS NOT RECEIVED ITS ENTIRE COLLECTIONS AND HA S NOT DEBITED ALL THE EXPENDITURES RELATED TO ITS BUSINESS AND HIRE CHARG ES PAID TO VARIOUS DISTRIBUTORS OF FILMS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND M OST OF THEM WERE ALL OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEES TRUE INCOME WAS NOT DISCLOSED FOR TAXATION AND THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 158BD OF TH E ACT WAS ATTRACTED. THEREAFTER THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN ITIATED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.87 TO 31.3.97 AND ADDITIONS WERE M ADE FOR VARIOUS YEARS AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD W AS COMPUTED. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 8 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CHALLEN GED THE VALIDITY OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF TH E ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SATISFACTION HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U./S 158BD OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HOWE VER UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN INITIATING 158BD PROCEEDINGS. 6. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 1 9 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF PARTNER DR. R.N DHANYA TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 6.8.20 08 AND SOON AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME, IT WAS ENTRUSTED TO ITS TAX CONSULTANT SHRI S VENKATESAN, CA WITH AN INSTRUCTION TO PREPAR E AND SEND THE APPEAL FOR SCRUTINY TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE THE DU E DATE BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT I.E BEFORE 5.10.2009. HOWEVER, DUE TO ILL HEALTH OF TAX CONSULTANT SHRI S VENKATESAN, THE PREPARATION OF AP PEAL PAPER AND SENDING THE APPEAL PAPER FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN THE T IME DUE DATE WAS DELAYED. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ASKING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THEIR CONTR OL AND WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR WILLFUL AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 9 CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSE D OFF ON MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAID AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE INC LINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. COMING TO THE GROUNDS 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL BEFORE US RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158 BD OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHIL E REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, DREW OUR PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND NOT IN THE FI RM ITSELF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 158BC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT U/S 158BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE HAS DR AWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAGE NO.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN NOTICE U/S 158BC DATED 12.3.2008 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERI OD FOR 1.4.87 TO 21.11.1997 IS PRODUCED. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DOCKET SHEET OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WHICH IS PRODUCED BY T HE LEARNED DR IN THEIR PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN THE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEES FILE AS CAN BE SEEN FROM DOCKET SHEET. T HUS ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SEARCH BE ING CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS AND NOT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 10 THE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED U/S 158BD READ W ITH SEC. 158BC AND THE SATISFACTION ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED AND NOT IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSE E. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION , HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL TO W HICH BOTH OF US ARE PARTY IN IT(SS)A NOS.15 AND 16 OF 2010 FOR THE BLOC K PERIOD 1.4.87 TO 28.8.97 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF B BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF N RAMAKRISHNAN IN IT(SS)A NO.62/BANG/2007 FOR TH E BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.81 TO 29.5.2001, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BEFORE ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, SATISFACTIO N HAS TO BE RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED AND TH AT IT SHOULD ALSO BE REFLECTED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U./S 158BD THAT THE INCOME BELONGS TO SOME OTHER PERSON OF THE INCOME-TAX SO AS TO ENABLE THE OTHER PERSON TO GIVE HIS EXPLANATION FOR THE NOTICE U/S 158 BD O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PL ACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE SPL. BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 113 ITD 377 AN D ALSO THE IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 11 DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MA NISH MAHESHWARI REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341. 9. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AND IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNERS IS ONE AND THE SAME AND , THEREFORE, AS HELD BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (CITED SUPR A), THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING THE SATISFACTION. 10. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THA T IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND NOT IN THE A SSESSEES FIRM. IN SUCH A CASE, 158BC HAVE TO BE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNERS IS CORRECT AND THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD HAVE TO BE IN ITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 158BC TO THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT IS PURPORTED TO BE U/S 158BC READ WITH SEC. 158BD OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI AND ALSO THE SPL. BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGGARWAL (CITED SUPRA), THE SATISFACTION THAT THE MATERIAL FOUND IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 12 IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGS TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE CONCLU SION OF THE 158BC PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHE D. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE H AS RECORDED SATISFACTION AND NOT THE AO OF THE PERSON SEARCHED I.E PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. EVEN IF THE AO IS THE SAME PERSON WI TH REGARD TO BOTH THE ASSESSEES, THE AO HAS TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTI ON IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE INITIAT ION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I S VOID AB-INITIO BECAUSE THE NOTICE U/S 158BC GIVES THE JURISDICTIO N TO THE AO TO INITIATE THE BLOCK ASST. PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF T HE SAME, THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 158BD ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS THE JURISDICT ION ISSUE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE AN Y REASON GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS 4 TO 12 RELATING TO THE MERIT S OF ADDITION AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IT(SS)A NO.70/B/08 13 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH DEC, 2011. SD/- SD/- (N.K SAINI) (P MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 29/12/2011 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE.